Libertarianism & Socialism: Unlikely Partners

Whenever my friend and I talk politics, our solutions seems to come down to some amalgam of libertarianism & socialism. As incompatible as those may seem, usually this is our outcome that we see as workable. I do not mean, somewhere in between libertarianism and socialism, rather some institutions and parts of society, completely libertarian and other segments entirely socialist.

An example of this is the healthcare issue, I personally believe this is something that should be socialized and could be managed by directly pulling a percentage based fee out of everyone’s income directly to take care of this.

Despite this, those who engage in hazardous and dangerous activity that is blatantly harmful to their health, might be ejected from the national healthcare on ‘point’ basis, similar to a driver’s license. Those who use drugs will go through drug rehab one, and after that point, be ejected, and have the opportunity into the system, and be accepted or denied based on certain criteria.

With college funding, I believe the entire situation should be reconfigured, and larger government involvement should come into play. I also believe in the k-12 level, all schools should be funded equally. The reason for this, is just as the military is necessary to protect our country, the education system is necessary to progress our country.

On the other hand, I pretty much agree with a libertarian standpoint on more or less all issues, I do believe in lighter libertarianism, in that, anti-monopoly laws need to be in place, and some formal government regulation of such things as the financial industry need to place.

In the realm of drug use, gun ownership, affirmative action, abortion, I believe that comes down to the state and local level, these are things, that should not be legislated or imposed by a federal government.

In regards to the market, deregulation of most sectors, and pulling away the redtape will do alot to stimulate. However, I believe in a socialist standpiont, in that we should support domestic businesses over foreign enterprises in many ways. This is one aspect where the government should intervene, really place of intervention in business would be for, American business against foreign competitors.

Anyways…libertarianism & socialism…

You seem to miss something.

The problem is not that you kick certain people out of social programs, it is that you make those of us join them that do not want them.

If you want to build a health cooperative or however you want to call it, go ahead.

If you want to build a government program and force me to join it please tell me what drugs I do have to take so that you kick me out.

You do realize that in socialism, the government owns the means of production. This is a matter of definition. So how you want socialism and libertarianism at the same time seems to be explainable only by your not understanding the terms.

If you think that the government administers healthcare best, why don’t you ask any veteran who needs much healthcare about the VA.

Or if you mean you want a “single-payer” system – a euphemism for “only the government can pay: you must have the government’s approval for all procedures” – why don’t you ask any doctor what he thinks about the viability of all medical care and payment being like Medicare.

Or ask any financial expert who has looked into the matter about how well the government has run Medicare and what its financial prospects are.

What do you do with the people who are “ejected”? Since you have socialized the entire system, where do they go? Are you basically saying you sentence to death all addicts, smokers, overweight, etc.? I think drug addicts are idiots, but don’t condemn them to death.

You want greater government involement in education? Study the data that shows declining results with increased government funding. Education should be run and funded locally. If it is run by the federal government, no one is accountable for results. The federal government produces abysmal results in nearly every endeavor.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You do realize that in socialism, the government owns the means of production. This is a matter of definition. So how you want socialism and libertarianism at the same time seems to be explainable only by your not understanding the terms.

If you think that the government administers healthcare best, why don’t you ask any veteran who needs much healthcare about the VA.

Or if you mean you want a “single-payer” system – a euphemism for “only the government can pay: you must have the government’s approval for all procedures” – why don’t you ask any doctor what he thinks about the viability of all medical care and payment being like Medicare.

Or ask any financial expert who has looked into the matter about how well the government has run Medicare and what its financial prospects are.[/quote]

He was pretty specific. Matters of health care and law under a government system. The rest of industry under libertarianism/capitalism. Its called a “mixed” system, the government runs the cops, but you can start your own widget factory, its not a new concept and most countries run under a system like this. Hes not confusing the two ideas.

The quality of VA care is different depending on location and sickness, just like normal hospitals.

The largest group of organized doctors is backing Obamacare for better/worse.

Ah, the matter of VA care can be dismissed by referring to it as “different” among different hospitals, just as all hospitals are different; and the AMA backing a plan which is not single-payer and is not in fact socialist (the government does not own the means of production in the current plan) is considered a suitable reply to what I wrote.

[quote]You seem to miss something.

The problem is not that you kick certain people out of social programs, it is that you make those of us join them that do not want them. [/quote]

You only don’t want them, because you are employed. Wait till they outsource your position to Bangalore, and find yourself unemployed with no health coverage, and I think your tune will change.

It’s not just the uneducated ‘coloreds’ with bad life attitudes who get sucked into the misery and hopelessness of American poverty. You or any of us no matter what, can get pulled in, and once you’re there, your whole viewpoint will change. Believe me. It can happen, and it is very likely it will happen to you.

This is the fallacy of our capitalist society, people don’t see past their current employer and bank account, until they lose it and realize how temporary all that shit really was.

Perhaps you’re unaware that some of us have principles where we DON’T want others to be forced to pay money towards our benefit.

I understand, however, that you do, if it’s benefit towards you that is being talked about.

As for your introduction of the race card: Pathetic.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps you’re unaware that some of us have principles where we DON’T want others to be forced to pay money towards our benefit.

I understand, however, that you do, if it’s benefit towards you that is being talked about.

As for your introduction of the race card: Pathetic.[/quote]

I missed that, I think alot of people don’t understand me being facetious.

I don’t see it as paying money towards someone benefit, as an employee of a company, you are just their little slave bitch for free healthcare.

I don’t see it is as unethical or against my principles, as I would be someone who payed for impoverished children to have these things, I am willing to give that kind of charity and I believe anyone else should be obliged to.

In the case of the multi-billionaires, you hardly see an anti-healthcare person up in arms, about the blank check the federal government gave to the robber baron oligarchs back in last November, I imagine 60% of that came from the middle class’ pocketbooks.

But you’ll rage and squeal at the prospect of the wealthy, having to pay so the children of the impoverished can get flu vaccinations and basic medical care.

That my friend is pathetic. It’s so absurd, it’s deafening.

In Reagonomics, the idea was, if you let the rich keep their money they’ll trickle it down to the poor through investment. In crisis-nomics, the idea is if you take the money out of the middle class’ pcokets, and give it to the wealthy, they’ll trickle it down to the poor…wait what? Good luck on seeing that happen.

It’s time for serious change, the corruption is too much.

“People should be obliged to give to charity.” (Paraphrased, but accurately.)

That’s not “giving,” it’s having money forcibly taken away.

“You’ll rage and squeal…”

“…As an employee of a company, you are just their little slave bitch for free healthcare.”

So I guess you are either unemployed or you are a little slave bitch. Or maybe both. Obviously you have an entitlement mentality.

Then your crap that supposedly those that are against forcing people to pay for others’ healthcare had nothing to say about the bailouts. Do you even engage in reasoning where things are connected to each other, let alone to reality?

Goodbye.

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:

I don’t see it as paying money towards someone benefit, as an employee of a company, you are just their little slave bitch for free healthcare.

[/quote]

This is the big problem with America today. You act like you are entitled to something just because…you are forgetting that your employer PAYS you to work, if you are so against being a “little slave bitch” go work for someone else, you have choices. Health care isn’t a fucking right, and I shouldn’t have to be robbed by the government for your benefit.

to the OP,

I may be mistaken, but you sound exactly like someone who is in college or newly out of college, who has bought hook, line, and sinker everything their lib/commie/socialist/whatever professors have fed you. I doubt you have ever had a job in the real world, and if you have it hasn’t been for very long. You probably sit around drinking Starbucks, waxing political with friends, each trying to sound smarter than the last. All the while people around you, including this forum, realize what a complete pseudo poly-sci drone you really are.

I suggest you go get a real, free market job (not govt/ edu/ union ) wait five years, and try again when you have a mortgage or kids or your own business or any or all of these.

If I’m wrong and you are an older person with real life experience may I suggest that you never reproduce or set foot in a voting booth.

                                             Godspeed dumbass

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
You seem to miss something.

The problem is not that you kick certain people out of social programs, it is that you make those of us join them that do not want them.

You only don’t want them, because you are employed. Wait till they outsource your position to Bangalore, and find yourself unemployed with no health coverage, and I think your tune will change.

It’s not just the uneducated ‘coloreds’ with bad life attitudes who get sucked into the misery and hopelessness of American poverty. You or any of us no matter what, can get pulled in, and once you’re there, your whole viewpoint will change. Believe me. It can happen, and it is very likely it will happen to you.

This is the fallacy of our capitalist society, people don’t see past their current employer and bank account, until they lose it and realize how temporary all that shit really was.[/quote]

Since I am not employed and have not been for a decade you are wrong.

Furthermore it does not matter why I do not not want to join your system, I just do not want to.

So what do we do now?

Would you make me?

If so, how would I have to sabotage my health to get out of socialized medicine?

And what I’m saying is, most US companies are wasteful monoliths of inefficiency. You think you’re some hard worker, cuz you got lucky, passed an interview when your number got called, so now you’re some kind of self-made baller, cuz you got in on some capitalist socialist organization that give s a paycheck and healthcare…as long as your employed. What happens when you don’t have a job, does that mean you’re a worthless bum, who doesn’t deserve to live if you get sick? You don’t pitch in anymore, cuz you’re not playing solitaire at your desk six hours a day?

No, I don’t work at a major company, I have my own business, and I get by. From the miniscule amount I make, which increased dramatically this week, like quadrupled, I’d be wiling to pay to help people (A) Get Educated, and (B) Get Healthcare. Why? Because I already pay for this to be done for a million or more soldiers, on top of billions upon billions dumped into floating targets and weapons of mass destruction. So if we can spend money on that, I think perhaps we can spend money on (a) education & (b) healthcare. I come from a country that makes half what microsoft makes a year, and the government there at least, attempts to provide these things for the people, and has somewhat successfully, at least in the field of education.

I’ve been poor, I know poor, I am poor. In a really stupid fucking way, my family is wealth, but so tied down with shitty investments, that I am unable to get money from my family, and unable to get help from the government. That my friend, is a rock and hard place. I pay for it, my family pays for it, but we cannot take advantage of it. All the money we make gets to paid out the bankers, then we pay for the bail out as well. Ridiculous.

I’m not some lib/commie/fag-loving/diversiqueer, or whatever your painting me is. My social values probably fall a little too far to the right for most people’s tastes. However, I know, a society can provide education, and healthcare for its citizens. And by golly, perhaps, I might be ENTITLED to such a thing, like you know, the basic human right of LIFE. I don’t see how the hell anyone can justify this bitch made system, that every other country in the first world has managed to get past.

Youre not fighting for freedom, by opposing a larger socialist policy in education and healthcare, you’re just being pawned out by a bunch of rich oligarchs who run the damn country through interests.

I think the only thing that is holding us back from success in alot of these socialist endeavors, is all the PC left wing touchy-feely bullshit, that infests such initiatives like a tumorous cancer.

Social medicine and education, is not left wing, Franco’s Spain, Yugoslavia, Nazi Germany? These are aspects that must be maintained to have a progressive society, just like the justice system, the military, and infrastructure. If you think otherwise, think again, and pull the robber billionaires out of your ear.

Won’t comment. As this is a national issue of debate, you will find plenty of reasoning where you look. I will state that I have my reservations. Such programs work best under homogenous societies, indeed depend on them.

[quote]
Despite this, those who engage in hazardous and dangerous activity that is blatantly harmful to their health, might be ejected from the national healthcare on ‘point’ basis, similar to a driver’s license. Those who use drugs will go through drug rehab one, and after that point, be ejected, and have the opportunity into the system, and be accepted or denied based on certain criteria.[/quote]

Would they be outlawing all risky activities then. An ever multiplying plethora of boo booing nanny state laws? How will the military, police, and firefighters be handled.

[quote]
With college funding, I believe the entire situation should be reconfigured, and larger government involvement should come into play. I also believe in the k-12 level, all schools should be funded equally. The reason for this, is just as the military is necessary to protect our country, the education system is necessary to progress our country.[/quote]

This has a slippery slope leading into government indoctrination. Also, not everyone belongs in college.

A nationalist. I applaud. Patriot sentiments. Do note though that socialism has from its inception been inherently internationalist, among other things. When it becomes nationalist we get the Nazis and the Soviets. The terms can get muddied, words are imperfect, and like 1984’s Newspeak make discussion difficult, but I think you’ll get the meaning.

National Socialsm was pretty damn effective until they started trying to conquer everyone. Imagine if we implemented National Socialsm, and quit all the foreign military adventurism. Perhaps, we could make something sustainable.

College Admission should be done through rigorous exams. Maths, Sciences, English, Foreign Language, other skill sets of your choosing, decide your admission into major institutions and whether or not you will recieve government money to do so.

Ya I agree. In order to have this system in place, we’d have to some sort of logic dictating our judgements.
I suppose what I meant was, if you are a drug user for instance and go through rehab, on health cares bill, and return to drugs, the system repeats, after 3 points. You’re out, and can go die in a gutter somewhere. You cannot help people, who will not help themselves.

Obesity, if you cannot lose the weight with government support after so many times, you are left to your fatness. Once you have lost the weight let’s say, you may be allowed to reapply into the healthcare system.

At the same time, my own personal convictions would not see steroids or marijuana as things that should eject you from said system.

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
And what I’m saying is, most US companies are wasteful monoliths of inefficiency. You think you’re some hard worker, cuz you got lucky, passed an interview when your number got called, so now you’re some kind of self-made baller, cuz you got in on some capitalist socialist organization that give s a paycheck and healthcare…as long as your employed. What happens when you don’t have a job, does that mean you’re a worthless bum, who doesn’t deserve to live if you get sick? You don’t pitch in anymore, cuz you’re not playing solitaire at your desk six hours a day?
[/quote]
You forget that working for the socialist government would be the ultimate monolithic inefficient job. A Socialist State: All belong to the State; a monopoly writ large. The biggest monopoly of them all, it literally owns everything!

You are indeed correct that companies have several resemblances to mini socialist states. Don’t make that mistake, making it 10 times worse, extending those socialist aspects to the entire society, the whole of our lives. Frankly I’m amazed you would even countenance the matter. Are you trying to justify coasting like a bum?
[/quote]

[quote]
I’m not some lib/commie/fag-loving/diversiqueer, or whatever your painting me is. My social values probably fall a little too far to the right for most people’s tastes. However, I know, a society can provide education, and healthcare for its citizens. And by golly, perhaps, I might be ENTITLED to such a thing, like you know, the basic human right of LIFE. I don’t see how the hell anyone can justify this bitch made system, that every other country in the first world has managed to get past.[/quote]

Well, you’ve certainly hung out with many of them. It is to the discredit of society that there are enough talking voices on the left side to make you feel far right.

Now, why would you be “entitled”? Let me spell it out for you in so many letters: you are blatantly claiming that some other people have the obligation to take care of you, not yourself. Why don’t you, pay for me instead? The government is not actually some mysterious do-it-all god. Resources are not unlimited. People are involved, people built these institutions, people made these things. There is a reason for a conservative age related switch; for good reason you are told to grow up before opining.

[quote]
Youre not fighting for freedom, by opposing a larger socialist policy in education and healthcare, you’re just being pawned out by a bunch of rich oligarchs who run the damn country through interests. [/quote]

There will always be inequality. Men are not equal. For that simple fact. There are people taller than others, smarter than others, stronger, better looking, etc and they will do with their talents what they will.

Now, we have here a very special system in the United States. One of freedom and prosperity, where these oligarchs can have their hand in creating the world and our liberties, unprecedented in any age, we are free to enjoy unopposed. You would do away with that to live under an impoverished socialist slave state, an admittedly monolithic and inefficient one, the biggest of them all, just so you can bum. Or let loose and wild and there would be a return to the Dark Ages, of warlordism, barbarism, short, nasty, brutish lives. Is that what you seriously want to advocate? The rest of the world sucks. I think you just want an excuse to bum. Why should anyone support you?

[quote]
I think the only thing that is holding us back from success in alot of these socialist endeavors, is all the PC left wing touchy-feely bullshit, that infests such initiatives like a tumorous cancer. [/quote]

Yeah, we could be like the Nazis instead. Socialism is a problem in and of itself. Although forced to choose between the two, I would prefer the manly model of the Nazis.

Wait, what? Yugoslavia was in bed with the Soviets, the Nazis are the National [i]Socialists[/i], you should know that the totalitarians of the so called right and left are one and the same. Gone far they loop back unto one another. If you go to the left there will always be totalitarianism. That is what you are doing, that is what is happening: you are giving the State power, the power to ask a question. Can the individual be trusted?

Damn. And I thought I was being bald. But, I won’t deny its manliness.

I don’t think you can remove the military without removing the manliness.

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Socialsm was pretty damn effective until they started trying to conquer everyone. Imagine if we implemented National Socialsm, and quit all the foreign military adventurism. Perhaps, we could make something sustainable. [/quote]

Wow.

Yugoslavia was not in bed with the Soviets, learn your history. Yugoslavia left the Soviet sphere of influence right after World War 2. Stalin tried to assasinate Tito twice, Tito promised to return the favor. Yugoslavia before it degraded into ethnic conflict in the 90s was a model for a mixed system.

I work my ass off. I have a business. I take a full load in school. I probably don’t train as much as I should. No, I am not a bum. I’m probably more productive than 2 office workers, cuz I gotta get my bread myself, where as they got their entitled check whether they produce the company income or not.

However, I disagree. The wealthy take as much from the underclasses, as healthcare would take from them, it is difficult to argue that recieving socialized health care that I pay for is any more immoral than our existing system. I take care of myself, and if the government taxed us all for medical, then I’d pay. You wouldn’t take care of me. A doctor of me, and he’d be compensated like a police officer, fireman, or soldier, obviously, those are not shameful positions becuase they have to be taken care of ‘by others.’ Give me a break. When I get wealthy, I’d gladly for the poor’s treatment. The poor are not poor from stupidity, more often than not, it is circumstance. For somebody to be winning in capitalism, somebody else has to be losing.